Physics and Math Books

[Richard Roark]

I was wondering if anybody here knew of any good math and science books that i could purchase in order to teach myself that which i should have gotten in the first place in recieving my education. Thanks.

Richard Roark

[Bryan]

Here is an Objectivist homeschooling and self-education site with a lot of book recommendations: http://strongbrains.com/

[Richard Roark]

thanks for the info and i'll browse and take a better look at that site tomorrow. Now it is off to bed then to work at the dead end drop. Of course working at the bottom means thing, Things can only go up from here. Cheers and goodnigh.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Richard Roark

[Bold Standard]

As a rule of thumb, I've found that in general, books published before 1940 or so are a lot more clearly written and logical than newer books, in subjects like math and science. I've had good luck going to used bookstores, and getting the oldest copies they have of plane geometry, engineering, mechanics, or whatever. I've always learned a lot more in the first few pages than I learned from entire courses on supposedly more advanced topics in school.

And the older books almost never include distracting analogies to things like football and shopping in their explanations of principles.

[Richard Roark]

Cool, I am right now working on getting my sentence structure and grammar better. I bought Rex Barks and have been doing the excercises in the book. I find it incredibly frustrating at times when I am writing something and word show that i have some grammar mistake and yet i don't know why, especially since i have chosen to become a writer. Yet, i want to teach myself the sciences and math again. I remember when i was younger that i absolutely loved to learn, hated school though. I can pinpoint the time when i began losing my edge though in science and math though and it frustrates me to no end. I'll never forget when I read Comprachios(sp?) the first time in the New Left. Damn did it make me angry. lol Just got down reading my post from last night, half it doesn't make any sense, must have been more tired than i realized.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Richard Roark

[Bryan]

As a rule of thumb, I've found that in general, books published before 1940 or so are a lot more clearly written and logical than newer books, in subjects like math and science.  I've had good luck going to used bookstores, and getting the oldest copies they have of plane geometry, engineering, mechanics, or whatever.  I've always learned a lot more in the first few pages than I learned from entire courses on supposedly more advanced topics in school.

And the older books almost never include distracting analogies to things like football and shopping in their explanations of principles.

I noticed this when I started reading Logic: An Introduction by Lionel Ruby. It is essentially a text book, I was shocked how clearly written and easy to follow it was. I thought to myself, "why can't all text books be like this?!"

[Prometheus98876]

I would agree that alot of the older books (pre 1940 for instance) are often presented in a more logical sense. They also generally cover the theoritical aspects of the subject matter more comprehensively.

However having said that, I have found that alot of more modern books are highly useful. For instance, many of them present highly useful practical problems demonstrating more modern applications of the subject than the older books might. It really is a matter of being very selective and finding the few modern gems that are still out there.

Of course, the ideal book would present the theories comprehensively and contain alot of coverage practical applications. In fact, one Linear Algebra textbook I used to ave does this almost perfectly. If anyone wants to know what it is I can probably find out.

[DArcMatter]

Of course, the ideal book would present the theories comprehensively and contain alot of coverage practical applications.  In fact, one Linear Algebra textbook I used to ave does this almost perfectly.  If anyone wants to know what it is I can probably find out.

Could the Linear Algebra textbook be Gilbert Strang's? I liked his _Applied Linear Algebra_ book--the theoretical material was presented conversationally, but the standards of rigor were scrupulously maintained throughout.

Having been a teaching assistant for math courses, I have had the job of looking at textbooks from a teacher's perspective, and they are almost all the same. I had a Professor show me the great-granddaddy of modern Calculus textbooks, which all modern ones use as a template (Granville, Smith and Longley). College and High School Algebra textbooks are much the same too.

The best way to learn math is at the end of your pencil. Pick a book with a lot of problems to work through, and find someone (not another book) who can help you through the rough spots, and to get you acquainted with the verbal knowledge of mathematics and science.

[Prometheus98876]

No, it was not by Strang. I think it was Linear Algebra with Applications by David Lay. Although the one I have presently, by Kolman and R.Hill is also quite good, though not as good as the Lay one (if it was Lay.). It illustrates alot of popular applications (such as Bit Matrices, Wavelet compression, Markov chains...) of Linear Algebra while handling the theory reasonably well.

I definetely agree that having a good textbook is not enough to do as well as one can. That is another strength of the Lay book and the Kolman, Hill books, they are full of problems of varying difficulty. And alot of the problems in the Kolman book deal with solving theoritical problems and proving theorems.